Shame people don't get an actual Grandmaster title until they pass 2500 in that case!
Why do people say that 1400 is low-rated
Sort:
glamdring27 wrote:
Shame people don't get an actual Grandmaster title until they pass 2500 in that case!
maybe it was a typo and he meant 2500 instead of 2400?
lfPatriotGames wrote:
fgsjd wrote:
It should be recognized that titled players (especially FM to GM ) are basically the NFL of chess. Of course if you compare yourself to them you'll look terrible. Just like a high school kid may be a very good football player but if you put him in a NFL game he will look like a hopeless fatty. You must compare yourself to people in your class. Casual players if that's what you are or competitive players or people who don't practice or train at all and just play.
I agree it makes sense to compare yourself to others in your class. But FMs and GMs are not the NFL of chess. NFL players get paid, I dont think there are any volunteer NFL players. The minimum an NFL player makes is about 400k per year. Minimum. I dont think the minimum amount a FM makes is 400k a year playing chess. I'll bet some FMs and even some GMs make close to zero playing chess.
I meant in terms of relative skill, not pay.
2200 CM ; 2400 IM ; 2500 GM. I would consider 1400 to be low rated because players of that grade drop pieces or material. To that end 1400 to 1500 is probably the easiest improvement.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
iluvzmetuna wrote:
why don’t you do some checking out of the facts instead of making pointless guesses and trying to make fgsjd’s post look inaccurate while making it look far more relevant than your own.
Because I use common sense. So when I make a guess, it's usually pretty accurate. So what ARE the facts? Are you implying the minimum salary in the NFL is NOT about 400k? Are you implying some FMs do NOT make about zero playing chess? Are you implying 400k IS the minimum a FM, or even a GM, makes in a year? Which of my guesses do you disagree with?
As far as expertise and ability, I agree, GMs would compare to the NFL. They are the best of the best. To compare ability it makes sense to compare within your own class or ability. But to say FMs compare to the NFL I think it totally inaccurate.
well, maybe FMs are like the Packers of chess
.
Jun 29, 2019
0
#88
glamdring27 wrote:
You have an odd definition of beginner if it counts 99% of people who do an activity!
Simply honest self-assessment. Today, I'm not a beginner at blitz. Yesterday I was. Tomorrow, I may be again.
Jun 29, 2019
0
#89
fgsjd wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
iluvzmetuna wrote:
why don’t you do some checking out of the facts instead of making pointless guesses and trying to make fgsjd’s post look inaccurate while making it look far more relevant than your own.
Because I use common sense. So when I make a guess, it's usually pretty accurate. So what ARE the facts? Are you implying the minimum salary in the NFL is NOT about 400k? Are you implying some FMs do NOT make about zero playing chess? Are you implying 400k IS the minimum a FM, or even a GM, makes in a year? Which of my guesses do you disagree with?
As far as expertise and ability, I agree, GMs would compare to the NFL. They are the best of the best. To compare ability it makes sense to compare within your own class or ability. But to say FMs compare to the NFL I think it totally inaccurate.
well, maybe FMs are like the Packers of chess.
Gotta root for the Packers, ...
except when they are playing the Seahawks!
fgsjd wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
fgsjd wrote:
It should be recognized that titled players (especially FM to GM ) are basically the NFL of chess. Of course if you compare yourself to them you'll look terrible. Just like a high school kid may be a very good football player but if you put him in a NFL game he will look like a hopeless fatty. You must compare yourself to people in your class. Casual players if that's what you are or competitive players or people who don't practice or train at all and just play.
I agree it makes sense to compare yourself to others in your class. But FMs and GMs are not the NFL of chess. NFL players get paid, I dont think there are any volunteer NFL players. The minimum an NFL player makes is about 400k per year. Minimum. I dont think the minimum amount a FM makes is 400k a year playing chess. I'll bet some FMs and even some GMs make close to zero playing chess.
I meant in terms of relative skill, not pay.
I know. I understand that's what you meant. But FM does not compare at all to the NFL. On any level. The NFL has paid members, so it's an entirely different type of organization. As far as relative skill, GM maybe, but certainly not FM.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
fgsjd wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
fgsjd wrote:
It should be recognized that titled players (especially FM to GM ) are basically the NFL of chess. Of course if you compare yourself to them you'll look terrible. Just like a high school kid may be a very good football player but if you put him in a NFL game he will look like a hopeless fatty. You must compare yourself to people in your class. Casual players if that's what you are or competitive players or people who don't practice or train at all and just play.
I agree it makes sense to compare yourself to others in your class. But FMs and GMs are not the NFL of chess. NFL players get paid, I dont think there are any volunteer NFL players. The minimum an NFL player makes is about 400k per year. Minimum. I dont think the minimum amount a FM makes is 400k a year playing chess. I'll bet some FMs and even some GMs make close to zero playing chess.
I meant in terms of relative skill, not pay.
I know. I understand that's what you meant. But FM does not compare at all to the NFL. On any level. The NFL has paid members, so it's an entirely different type of organization. As far as relative skill, GM maybe, but certainly not FM.
Well FM maybe doesn't equal a NFL starter, but maybe 3rd string. And 1400s are more like cheer leaders or maybe or a drunk fan and Sub 1000s are drunk fans streaking across the field naked.
AnthonyAtanasov wrote:
glamdring27 wrote:
Shame people don't get an actual Grandmaster title until they pass 2500 in that case!
maybe it was a typo and he meant 2500 instead of 2400?
Thanks for pointing this out . The '>2400' actually means 2400 and above. For technical purposes (math lords), that would be 2401 and above.
Of course, these are just rating guidelines. In truth, one could always find a 2000 who is grandmaster because of the opponents they've beaten (or beaten by), even if only in strength. In the end, it's all up to the organization to assess things accordingly and above. The ratings are just there simply as a ticket number - a queue before you're standing before the heads of the organization. So in essence it's all about the title rather than the ratings. Though, of course, the ratings enforces a sense of equity, so that all is fair and well. Nobody is above the ratings, they say. [If] you want that title you've got to work for it just like everybody else, regardless of how spectacular you are, they say.
That said, a Final Master (Legendary Master) should be employed permanently by the organization, for so many reasons that we could all speculate over.
AnthonyAtanasov wrote:
WSama wrote:
Allow me to break it down. The following is the ranking system for all of earth chess:
- <1200 = beginner/patzer
- <1400 = intermediate beginner
- ☆1500 = advanced beginner (beginner intermediate)
- <1700 = medium intermediate
- ☆1800 = strong (advanced intermediate)
- <2000 = beginner expert (candidate master)
- <2100 = intermediate expert (master)
- ☆2300 = advanced expert (expert master)
- >2400 = grandmaster
- >2700 = super grandmaster
- >3000 = legendary master (final master)
Agree with most of them
I don’t see too much problem.
As an 1800 USCF, I see little reason in calling 1400 USCF “low rated”, as there are plenty of scholastic players, patzers, or noobs below 1200 or so. A lot of kids don’t make it to the 4 digit club.
i am 12 and 2100 tactics and 1646 uscf, so big difference
triswijangco wrote:
What does OTB mean?
Over The Board
Jul 1, 2019
0
#98
So when people say they play otb it means theyre playing on an actual board?
Yes, usually in a tournament
Allow me to break it down. The following is the ranking system for all of earth chess:
Agree with most of them